The true cost of smoking

reply to post by jfj123

As far as I know, oxygen does not cause acute onset asthma.
In addition, I've never seen oxygen listed as a lung irritant. As a matter of fact, oxygen is used for advanced COPD patients.

Oxygen is the second-most corrosive element known, only surpassed by fluorine. The fact that we need it to exist is the reason why it is given to patients with any number of respiratory ailment. That does not stop it from being corrosive.

My point is simply that just because something is corrosive, it does not follow it is bad. Our bodies are designed to deal with contaminants.

One of my points is that the particulate size is extremely small compared to other irritants which make it much more dangerous as it can travel deeper into the lungs.

It also means it can be absorbed, processed as a contaminant, and rejected by the body much easier.

All I'm saying is don't smoke around people who don't smoke. Smoke anywhere else you like.

That sounds good in principle, but I want some clarification:

Situation: I am standing at a bus stop, alone, smoking while I wait. You walk up and stand next to me. Am I somehow obligated to put out my cigarette?

Situation: I am sitting at home having a smoke while watching a movie. You come to visit me. Am I required to stop smoking until you leave?

Situation: I am walking through my mountain, happily puffing away. You happen to be walking as well that day, and we meet. Am I required to stop smoking?

You see, these 'solutions' sound great, and twenty years ago I would have immediately agreed with you. But since that time, I have seen similar situations as I posted above be used to unfairly intrude on my enjoyment of my life. If you want common sense actions toward non-smokers by smokers, you simply cannot wait to ask for that until you have gleaned every legal advantage over them possible. It simply doesn't work that way.

Both the chemical additives and the tobacco itself is a problem.

Care to provide some evidence that untreated tobacco is a health risk? I know of no such study; all were conducted with commercial cigarettes.

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.

I will concede to that logic.

However, it has been my observations that man-made poisons are frequently more toxic than natural ones. I therefore tend to look toward man-made substances with a more cautious eye than I do natural substances.

I think that the smell is brand dependent because I know a guy that smokes plane tobacco cigarettes and roles them himself and it smells GOD AWFUL. Much worse then commercial cigarettes.

Do you have a brand name I could research? I use Premier, full flavor, and the smell from a freshly opened bag is awesome. Makes me want to eat it.

No not at all. My argument is:
Smoke all you want, just not around myself and others who don't want to be exposed to it.

Again, I refer you to the situations detailed above. Do you agree that both smokers and non-smokers have a role to play in the responsibility of sharing the same world peacefully?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by jfj123

One of my points is that the particulate size is extremely small compared to other irritants which make it much more dangerous as it can travel deeper into the lungs.

It also means it can be absorbed, processed as a contaminant, and rejected by the body much easier.

Actually it means just the opposite.

All I'm saying is don't smoke around people who don't smoke. Smoke anywhere else you like.

That sounds good in principle, but I want some clarification:

Situation: I am standing at a bus stop, alone, smoking while I wait. You walk up and stand next to me. Am I somehow obligated to put out my cigarette?

I prefer the YOUR THERE FIRST rule. I'd just stand far away from you and/or upwind. No problem.

Situation: I am sitting at home having a smoke while watching a movie. You come to visit me. Am I required to stop smoking until you leave?

I would never come over to your house due to the amount of smoke that would be in it. Smokers houses always have a sickening smell to those who don't smoke and the fumes are always in the air.

Situation: I am walking through my mountain, happily puffing away. You happen to be walking as well that day, and we meet. Am I required to stop smoking?

If we were talking at a distance, I wouldn't care. If it was up close, I'd just leave and let you continue smoking.

Again, I don't care if you smoke 10 packs a day. That should be your right. I just don't want to be exposed to it.

Both the chemical additives and the tobacco itself is a problem.

Care to provide some evidence that untreated tobacco is a health risk? I know of no such study; all were conducted with commercial cigarettes.

Off the top of my head, I can't remember specific studies and it's been a long time since I've read smoking related studies so I'll need to get back to you on this one.

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.

I will concede to that logic.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

However, it has been my observations that man-made poisons are frequently more toxic than natural ones. I therefore tend to look toward man-made substances with a more cautious eye than I do natural substances.

There are a lot of extremely toxic, very fatal substances in nature too.

I think that the smell is brand dependent because I know a guy that smokes plane tobacco cigarettes and roles them himself and it smells GOD AWFUL. Much worse then commercial cigarettes.

Do you have a brand name I could research? I use Premier, full flavor, and the smell from a freshly opened bag is awesome. Makes me want to eat it.

No, I honestly don't. He just moved so I can't ask him. All I know is that when I called it stinkweed, he said it was untreated tobacco he got really cheap. I've seen him role his own cigarettes. All I know is it smelled like burning hair mixed in with indian food.

No not at all. My argument is:
Smoke all you want, just not around myself and others who don't want to be exposed to it.

Again, I refer you to the situations detailed above. Do you agree that both smokers and non-smokers have a role to play in the responsibility of sharing the same world peacefully?

TheRedneck

Yes. One thing I'd like to see is if a restaurant allows smoking, there should be a sign in the window stating that this is a smoking establishment. I think that would help avoid smoker/non-smoker conflicts. From what I've seen, most conflicts do seem to happen at restaurants. If we can minimized conflicts, we can minimize complaints and also minimize the restrictions put on smokers.

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't want to see smoking banned for many reasons:
1. It would infringe on smokers rights.
2. We'd lose a lot of tax money.
3. We'd lose a lot of jobs.
4. We'd have a lot of really cranky people

But, those who don't want to be exposed to it, should have that right. Non-smokers, since they are the majority, should be able to know that they are not going to be exposed to smoke when they walk into an establishment.

I'll be honest, my single biggest problem with smokers is when I go to a restaurant. Where I live, almost every sit down restaurant is a smoking establishment so it's hard to find anyplace to eat.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123

Actually it means just the opposite.

I'm not even going to debate this. Either you completely missed my point or you believe marbles are easier for the body to absorb than molecules.

I'm hoping you just missed my point. Please go back and reread what I said.

I prefer the YOUR THERE FIRST rule. I'd just stand far away from you and/or upwind. No problem.

Then we don't have a problem.

I would never come over to your house due to the amount of smoke that would be in it. Smokers houses always have a sickening smell to those who don't smoke and the fumes are always in the air.

Again, no problem with me either.

If we were talking at a distance, I wouldn't care. If it was up close, I'd just leave and let you continue smoking.

Again, I don't care if you smoke 10 packs a day. That should be your right. I just don't want to be exposed to it.

Then why are we arguing? I would never and have never advocated forcing anyone to enter any establishment or stand in any location where they felt uncomfortable for any reason. The non-smoking regulations, up until recently, have met with precious little resistance (save possibly a little complaining, which is human nature whenever a change is made). Where the line is crossed is when every public establishment, every building is designated by law to be non-smoking. The problem comes when people are told they cannot smoke outdoors. The problem comes when people are told they cannot smoke in their own homes. the problem comes when people are told they can lose their children because they smoke.

Your responses to my situational queries above were reasonable. But the situations I now describe are not. I pay a small fortune in taxes to have the societal benefits we see all around us, but I am not allowed to enjoy them. Do you know how long it has been since I saw a movie in a theater? Decades. It's much easier to watch them on DVD where I can have a quick smoke without missing most of what I paid to see. Do you know how often I can enjoy my meal in a restaurant? Preciously rarely. So rarely that I go to great lengths to come up with excuses why I don't want to go out, just because I don't want to huddle around in the cold or the sweltering heat just so I can get enough nicotine to prevent myself from doubling over in pain.

You can call me a martyr all you want for that last statement. I'm no martyr. I am not going to die for any cause. I will, however point out the problems that are being ignored by you and the rest of society because they simply do not understand that not everyone is like them.

No, I honestly don't. He just moved so I can't ask him. All I know is that when I called it stinkweed, he said it was untreated tobacco he got really cheap. I've seen him role his own cigarettes. All I know is it smelled like burning hair mixed in with indian food.

Sounds like cheap, unblended tobacco. That makes it a poor example. The last time I was lucky enough to find a smoking-permitted restaurant, that steak smelled and tasted wonderful. Yet, I'm sure if it had been half-rotten, it would have been offensive in both respects.

Fine tobacco has a wonderful scent. Even my non-smoking friends love to smell a freshly-opened bag of mine. It is also used in some potpourri.

One thing I'd like to see is if a restaurant allows smoking, there should be a sign in the window stating that this is a smoking establishment. I think that would help avoid smoker/non-smoker conflicts. From what I've seen, most conflicts do seem to happen at restaurants. If we can minimized conflicts, we can minimize complaints and also minimize the restrictions put on smokers.

The reason restaurants are a target is that nicotine has a proven effect on the digestive system. It is a relaxer, a tranquilizer. To ask a heavy smoker to not smoke after (or sometimes during, depending on the severity of the habit) his meal is akin to asking him to eat without drinking. It ruins the enjoyment of the meal. How can you expect someone to enjoy eating if they are shoveling food into their mouths as fast as possible so they can get outside and smoke? How do you expect them to enjoy their meal when they can't properly digest their food? I doubt most would double up in pain like me, but there is discomfort and bloating associated with a large meal and a denial of their need for nicotine.

I have never complained once in my life about there being a non-smoking area in a restaurant. Not once. Yet, I hear many complaints from others about there being a smoking area? Why? If the areas are separated, there is no effect of the smoke on the non-smoking patrons. I understand that some restaurants (mainly the cheaper ones in my experience) would simply designate tables as non-smoking without regard to air flow, and I realize that made the distinction between smoking and non-smoking a moot point. I do not support this practice, simply on the principle it is false advertising. If a restaurant (or bar, or club, etc.) wishes to advertise a smoking/non-smoking separation, I as a customer would reasonably expect the separation to be sufficient to provide enjoyable atmospheres for both groups.

I do agree with your assessment of allowing private businesses to determine for themselves whether their establishment is to be smoking or non-smoking (or both). But in most areas of the country, this is not the case. State and local laws have been enacted that strictly prohibit smoking in any building except a residence. I understand it is not so in your area, but this is not a discussion about Michigan. This is a National, if not Global, debate. Where was your voice when these laws were being passed? Did you speak out? If so, thank you. If not, surely you understand your complaints are coming a bit late.

But, those who don't want to be exposed to it, should have that right. Non-smokers, since they are the majority, should be able to know that they are not going to be exposed to smoke when they walk into an establishment.

If smokers were in the majority would you feel as democratic?

I tend to doubt that. Ergo, fallacious argument.

I'll be honest, my single biggest problem with smokers is when I go to a restaurant. Where I live, almost every sit down restaurant is a smoking establishment so it's hard to find anyplace to eat.

Now you know how I feel.

TheRedneck

If you think smokers need to be taxed any more than you are an extremist.A 40 dollar tax on a pack of cigareetes is ridiculous.The op is obviously too emotionaly involved to be logical on this issue.We should not be encouraging more taxes on any one .You only end up encouraging more government waste as long as they can find a way to tax that causes the least outrage.Smokers are a minority so they get away with taxing them to death.Any taxes on cigarretes with no universal health coverage is ridiculous any way.Cigarette taxes should be lowered not raised.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by jfj123

Where the line is crossed is when every public establishment, every building is designated by law to be non-smoking. The problem comes when people are told they cannot smoke outdoors. The problem comes when people are told they cannot smoke in their own homes. the problem comes when people are told they can lose their children because they smoke.

I agree. It becomes a slippery slope. Everything needs some type of regulation but elimination is a poor answer to a problem. Once cigarettes are gone, the next target will be fast food, cell phones, etc..

Your responses to my situational queries above were reasonable. But the situations I now describe are not.

Agreed.

Do you know how long it has been since I saw a movie in a theater? Decades.

I've seen 2 movies in the theater since 1996
Independence Day
And
LOTR: Return of the King

And you know what, I couldn't enjoy either because aholes don't know when to shut up. My point is that you're better off at home watching it on DVD anyway.

you know how often I can enjoy my meal in a restaurant? Preciously rarely.

You should move to Michigan. There is so much smoke in restaurants, you may be able to get a 2nd hand smoke for free and save yourself some money

You can call me a martyr

Well actually I mentioned that most smokers act like martyr's. I don't think I specifically called you one. If I did, my bad.

No, I honestly don't. He just moved so I can't ask him. All I know is that when I called it stinkweed, he said it was untreated tobacco he got really cheap. I've seen him role his own cigarettes. All I know is it smelled like burning hair mixed in with indian food.

Sounds like cheap, unblended tobacco. That makes it a poor example. The last time I was lucky enough to find a smoking-permitted restaurant, that steak smelled and tasted wonderful. Yet, I'm sure if it had been half-rotten, it would have been offensive in both respects.

Fine tobacco has a wonderful scent. Even my non-smoking friends love to smell a freshly-opened bag of mine. It is also used in some potpourri.

I do actually like the smell of some pipe tobacco but my body can't handle it very long.

I have never complained once in my life about there being a non-smoking area in a restaurant. Not once. Yet, I hear many complaints from others about there being a smoking area? Why?

The reason is that the smoke doesn't stop at the smoking area barrier. Most non-smokers are more greatly affected by smoke because they're not used to it. The closest comparison I could make would be if you as a smoker sat in a 10 ft x 10 ft room with no ventilation with 20 people smoking cigars and all openings to the room were closed off.

If the areas are separated, there is no effect of the smoke on the non-smoking patrons.

To us, it's still like standing in a bon fire with smoking hitting us that hard. Again you're used to it so you don't notice.

I understand that some restaurants (mainly the cheaper ones in my experience) would simply designate tables as non-smoking without regard to air flow, and I realize that made the distinction between smoking and non-smoking a moot point. I do not support this practice, simply on the principle it is false advertising. If a restaurant (or bar, or club, etc.) wishes to advertise a smoking/non-smoking separation, I as a customer would reasonably expect the separation to be sufficient to provide enjoyable atmospheres for both groups.

Maybe this is more of a problem in Michigan then other states. Most of the restaurants that have non-smoking area's simply have area's designated as such without regard to physical seperation, ventilation, air flow, etc... So we're basically talking about a big square room with a bunch of tables and booths and the smoke is free to travel throughout the entire restaurant.

But, those who don't want to be exposed to it, should have that right. Non-smokers, since they are the majority, should be able to know that they are not going to be exposed to smoke when they walk into an establishment.

If smokers were in the majority would you feel as democratic?

Yes actually I would feel as democratic. I'm for a live and let live policy. Leave me alone, I leave you alone, we both enjoy life as much as possible.
I would still like to see a sign stating whether or not an establishment was smoking or non-smoking before I walk in, that's all I ask. As it is, at least in Michigan, the majority of sit down restaurants are smoking establishments so the minority is receiving majority treatment. I'm not even complaining about that, I just want to know ahead of time so I can make a short list of places I want to go and eat lunch. You see, non-smokers have the same problem as smokers, non-smokers cannot enjoy their lunch WITH cigarettes, smokers can't enjoy their lunch without them.

I'll be honest, my single biggest problem with smokers is when I go to a restaurant. Where I live, almost every sit down restaurant is a smoking establishment so it's hard to find anyplace to eat.

Now you know how I feel.

TheRedneck

Maybe you should consider moving to Michigan, I think you'd love it here.

reply to post by jfj123

jfj, it appears we have more to agree on than to argue about. I consider that a good thing.

And you know what, I couldn't enjoy either because aholes don't know when to shut up. My point is that you're better off at home watching it on DVD anyway.

Yeah, I remember that and certainly don't miss it. But my point was that now it is impossible for me to enjoy the movie, even if I were the only person there.

I do enjoy my DVDs, for a myriad of reasons, so I won't die if I don't go. I just wanted to get you to understand the frustration smokers go through, and I believe I have succeeded in that.

Well actually I mentioned that most smokers act like martyr's. I don't think I specifically called you one. If I did, my bad.

No, you never specifically mentioned me. I was just making sure you didn't.

I do actually like the smell of some pipe tobacco but my body can't handle it very long.

Most people do like the smell of (good) fresh tobacco. The last part about not being able to handle it very long concerns me, however. Tobacco emits no gases unless burned. There's nothing for your body to handle.

I hope it doesn't offend you (this has been a refreshingly pleasant debate), but I have to mention this: if you have trouble with the smell of fresh tobacco itself, you might want to consider that part of your offense at the smell could be psychosomatic.

The closest comparison I could make would be if you as a smoker sat in a 10 ft x 10 ft room with no ventilation with 20 people smoking cigars and all openings to the room were closed off.

You're talking to a guy who grew up in smoky bars and card games with the room so full of smoke you had to squint to see your own hand. It has never bothered me personally, but then I work around chemicals a lot that drive most people batty and have no problem with them either.

Most of the restaurants that have non-smoking area's simply have area's designated as such without regard to physical seperation, ventilation, air flow, etc... So we're basically talking about a big square room with a bunch of tables and booths and the smoke is free to travel throughout the entire restaurant.

I disagree with this on two levels... firstly, it is akin to false advertising, in that the restaurant is effectively advertising a smoker-free area and then not delivering on that promise, and secondly, it shows a lack of respect for their customers. I have complained about such situations in the past.

And I have even gone farther. I have sat down in a smoking section not partitioned off well and lit up, then noticed a horrified look on the people's face who are sitting near me. I have smiled, gotten up, and moved across the room to at least minimize their discomfort. That was my decision, not forced on me by anyone, and I was happy to do it. I really am not trying to 'toot my own horn', so to speak, but rather to illustrate that while I am adamant about being able to smoke, I am not inconsiderate about the realities of such a decision.

I think if you were fully aware of the scope of the debate on both sides and got to know some of these smokers who apparently bother you, you would realize it's not out of any desire to do so.

would still like to see a sign stating whether or not an establishment was smoking or non-smoking before I walk in, that's all I ask.

And I can see good logic in that request. I would be all for a little sign on the door of any establishment that allowed smoking informing the public at large of that fact. It infringes on no one's rights, leaves the government pretty much out of things, and is not heinous or expensive on the establishment.

And it gives people the freedom to make informed decisions about where they go.

Maybe you should consider moving to Michigan, I think you'd love it here.

Been there (ex-trucker). Too cold, sorry. I'm a tropical kinda guy.

TheRedneck

reply to post by die_another_day


I think of it more like natural selection. If you want to die a slow, horrible, painful death that costs thousands of dollars for your loved ones, there's very little anyone can do about it. Nicotine has a way of twisting your thoughts while under it's influence, causing the smoker to make any excuses seem reasonable and justified as long as you can get another fix. It was only after I realized this that I summoned the willpower to quit six years ago and never look back.

reply to who the hell wants government healthcare. I will take smoking over government healthcare any day. At;east I know I have a better chance of surviving by smoking cigs. than taking all those presciption medicines they will give you on Government heathcare
post by Wildbob77

I think I am beginning to see this argument in a much clearer light. If you take away the individual health risk and potential risk to others. Remove the addiction issue and strip away financial aspects to smokers and non-smokers alike....we are left with the simple concept of a person's individual rights.

The Right to choose, Freedom of choice.

I would thereby assume that all smokers are "Pro-Choice" and support a Woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.

Just kurious to see if the ardent smoking advocates agree.

I can't imagine the smokers would have a double-standard. Could they?

Hey RF Burns, The Redneck, you still there? Agree?

regards...KK

[edit on 3-2-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Don't know about the others, but I certainly agree. I had a tubal pregnancy which had to be "aborted" in order to save my life. But I've always believed that it should be the mother's choice, not law, anyway. Certainly I'd have been better off unborn than the childhood I had with my abusive mother who hated me.

I think helmet laws and seat belt laws should be unconstitutional, too.

I don't quite think we should return to anarchy and have no law or police at all, but I'd sure like to see America (since that's where I live) make some really big steps back towards respect for personal freedom and personal responsibility.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Yep, still here. Yep, still smoking.

I see your tactic. If A is true and A=B, then B must be true. Fine, logical, sensible thinking. So I'll bite.

I believe abortion is murder. Sorry, but that's how I feel. You hold your unborn child, a fetus, in your hands while the cord breaks during a miscarriage, and tell me if you don't feel the same way.

Ouch... memories...

I also am torn about abortion 'rights', especially when a woman nears the end of her pregnancy. You see, I still recognize the right of the woman over her body despite my personal objections to abortion. Thus, I do not advocate the total banning of abortion. My personal preference in that area would be something like this:

A woman who wishes to have an abortion should be required to schedule said abortion within two weeks of a positive test or before the end of the first trimester, whichever comes later. This ensures the woman who cannot face pregnancy can legally obtain an abortion, but it minimizes any chance of harming another sentient being unnecessarily.

Within the second trimester, the two-week rule would still apply. Cases of rape, health concerns for the woman, or incest would also be able to be terminated, after a hearing by a judge.

In the third trimester is where I get picky about the child. I believe no abortion should be allowed during the third trimester except in cases where it is medically certain the child is not viable upon birth, or the mother's health is in extreme danger. I could live with exceptions in cases where for any reason the mother was not able to terminate the pregnancy within the first two trimesters, but this is something that should be thoroughly reviewed and enforced.

Now that that is out of the way, I would like to explain how your logic is flawed. I have two children, ages 15 and 17. Had my wife chosen to have an abortion, they would be dead today. Neither would have had any period of life whatsoever, no chance to live and to show their value as a member of society and as an individual. Death would have been completely assured. that's the definition of abortion: the child dies, by whatever means is necessary to carry out the execution.

I have smoked around both of my children freely since I slowly introduced them to cigarette smoke at about age 6 months. 6 months is where most physicians agree that the immunity system of a child is fully functional, and until that time I refused to smoke around them myself or allow my friends to do so. Instead, we made sometimes extreme concessions to make sure my friends who smoked were comfortable and free to do so, while maintaining an absence of smoke around the children. After that time, I simply began to smoke in their vicinity. Nothing more sinister such as blowing smoke in their faces.

As opposed to the abortion option, they are alive, they are healthy, and they are on their way to becoming productive members of society and capable individuals. Neither smokes. Now, back to the logical argument of 'if A is true and A=B, then B must be true', I submit that in the case of abortion versus smoking, A is not equal to B. Abortion is defined as the death of a child; second-hand smoke exposure is hypothesized as leading to health problems, and much of that hypothesis disagrees with empirical data.

Yeah, it comes down to individual rights, but it also includes individual responsibility. As a smoker, I accept responsibility for my actions. I ask for no help from anyone else. I make my personal choices based on my beliefs and evidence I find convincing. I will make errors in judgment during my life, but so will you, and so will everyone else who exists. The difference? I blame no one else for my infirmities (or would not, since I have no significant infirmities).

My wife, my children, and I are all healthy and require no special consideration from others to live our life. Yet, how many people have posted on this and on similar smoking threads complaining about how smokers allowed to smoke is making it impossible for them to breath?

Who is healthier?

TheRedneck

Wow Wildbob77, you sure seem to be on a high horse. I'm aware of the risks, and the cost. By the way, states make millions, if not billions on tax revenue from tobacco sales each month. That says it for the insurance. It's not like insurance companies don't profit in the billions thanks to people like me who pay, and don't go every time my toe hurts, or I can't crap, or my nose runs. Bigger problem to the health industry are the health nuts who feel that they need to make my premiums go up just because their poop didn't float and they went to a doctor. Outdoors is outdoors, where the wind blows. Get over it. Stand up-wind. If you don't like it, stop breathing my smoke because you're just wasting it. As I've stated in another post. If California would stop wasting money on ignorant ventures, such as smoking and the same sex battle then maybe they could worry about their real problems. Such as the sovereignty of our nation and it's borders. That would mean swallowing pompousness and worrying about real issues though. Apply that principle to all the holier than thou types that spout this dreck each day. The true cost of smoking is dealing with people who can't mind their own, and enjoy pissing off people who are otherwise just trying to go about their day.
PS - Known smokers DO pay higher health and life insurance premiums. Some companies require niccotine testing to verify. that is an invasion of privacy, considering one persons money spends the same as the other's. If these companies would quit spending 30 Billion a year by covering Viagra prescriptions, we would all have cheaper health-care. Also, if someone is allergic to everything, should they be considered genetic trash and not have the same health care? That's more or less what you said about smokers. The system also covers many uninsured people who can't stop having kids even though they are broke as hell. What's your high and mighty solution to that? Get rid of the burden? It also covers illegals, criminals, addicts, drunks and people who have spread STDs. You want to damn these people as well? Get over yourself, and write something worthwhile. If only they could clear the net of all the useless pages, it would be better. Let me guess, you also know everything about drugs too, having never done them yourself. Same mind-set that says marijuana is bad with a beer in their hand. Wish there was a smiley for flipping the bird.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by venom79x]

Well, I'm firmly against urinating. I want you to come pay me 3 dollars every time you urinate. Why? Because it offends my sensibilities. Just like anti-smoking campaigns such as yours. (Not a personal attack )

reply to post by MrDudle


Who said this was an "anti-smoking" campaign?

And "urinating" is a natural bodily function and is not something people have any choice in doing.

Read the Opening Post again my friend!

I'm off to smoke a ciggy while I pee.

our economy is falling apart, jobs are getting scarce, some states might be forced to hold off on that precious welfare payment....
proverty is really rather ugly, if you haven't noticed. ya know, women and children begging in the streets, men barging into your house stealing your food at knifepoint. and well, all those run down houses all over the place!

rumors of fema camps run wild......

and well, they'll come and take the "poor" and most won't say a thing, because they still had the jobs...
then, they will come and take the smoker, and still most won't say a thing, because, well, they didn't smoke, and besides, those people stank...
then, they will come and take the obese overeaters, and still not many will say much, since they aren't obese.....
and if and when they come to take you, well, no one will be left to say much of anything...
but, for those who remain, well, life will become easier, jobs will become easier to come by, more food will be set on the table, the healthcare will become more reasonable....

and, that is what a good number of threads on this and all the other forums on the internet is all about...
to condition you to accept the idea that because of this flaw or that one, some people just aren't as deserving as you to those basic human rights.

and, it's what many of my posts are about....
scapegoating is running wild...
if you think you are not touchable, you are wrong!

[edit on 4-2-2009 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by theendisnear69
If someone dies because I was smoking next to them for 5 minutes, then their family can come tell me and I will pay for all the medical expenses.

Seriously I don't know anyone whos died because a guy was smoking at a bus stop.

If you shoot a bullet in the air and it hits someone, is there a chance he might die from the wound? He may not die instantly, but perhaps he will bleed to death slowly. Happens all the time on the battlefield.

The same is true of second hand smoke. It may not kill instantly, but eventually it may do just that.

I believe that if smokers feel they have the right to poison the air that others must breathe, then non-smokers have the right to spray poison into the air that smokers breathe. Rather silly, don't you think?

reply to post by rancelot

OK, so now second-hand cigarette smoke is being likened to shooting wildly.

Yeah, I know it was a metaphor, but it's really not much more drastic than some of the other things I have read on here. Here I am a heavy smoker and have been for the vast majority of my life, and I am medically sound. My wife doesn't smoke, but she lives with me and is still healthy. Both my kids are healthy, hale, and strong. In contrast, most of the anti-smokers seem to be having some serious respiratory distress despite their 'healthy' lifestyle.

Someday, this insanity will end. Maybe not in my lifetime, but someday. At least it will when the economy crumbles and people are forced by necessity to forego all the fancy medical care and air filters they enjoy now. You're already having trouble breathing for crying out loud. How long will you last when you can't afford a doctor to cure your wheezing and coughing every time someone lights up? How will you survive when exposed to a real pollutant, like concentrated auto exhaust or smog or industrial fumes?

I swear, I never thought I would say this, but after reading some of the posts from anti-smokers.... maybe smoking is actually healthy!! At least I can breath...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by jfj123

jfj, it appears we have more to agree on than to argue about. I consider that a good thing.

Yes, I agree.

And you know what, I couldn't enjoy either because aholes don't know when to shut up. My point is that you're better off at home watching it on DVD anyway.

Yeah, I remember that and certainly don't miss it. But my point was that now it is impossible for me to enjoy the movie, even if I were the only person there.

Yes I know, I was just being a bit fecicious.

I do enjoy my DVDs, for a myriad of reasons, so I won't die if I don't go. I just wanted to get you to understand the frustration smokers go through, and I believe I have succeeded in that.

Yes you have succeeded.

Well actually I mentioned that most smokers act like martyr's. I don't think I specifically called you one. If I did, my bad.

No, you never specifically mentioned me. I was just making sure you didn't.

Sorry if I was unclear earlier. I do try to stay away from specifics about other posters unless they really open up a door and you did not do that.

I do actually like the smell of some pipe tobacco but my body can't handle it very long.

Most people do like the smell of (good) fresh tobacco. The last part about not being able to handle it very long concerns me, however. Tobacco emits no gases unless burned. There's nothing for your body to handle.

I've never smelled good fresh tobacco then.
No, I meant when a pipe is lit and there's smoke in the air. Certain pipe tobaccos do smell good to me but the smoke is too much for me to handle for very long.

I hope it doesn't offend you (this has been a refreshingly pleasant debate), but I have to mention this: if you have trouble with the smell of fresh tobacco itself, you might want to consider that part of your offense at the smell could be psychosomatic.

Like I've said, I've never smelled, as example, a fresh bag of good tobacco.

The closest comparison I could make would be if you as a smoker sat in a 10 ft x 10 ft room with no ventilation with 20 people smoking cigars and all openings to the room were closed off.

You're talking to a guy who grew up in smoky bars and card games with the room so full of smoke you had to squint to see your own hand. It has never bothered me personally, but then I work around chemicals a lot that drive most people batty and have no problem with them either.

That's impressive that it didn't bother you. You obviously have an impressive tolerance.

Most of the restaurants that have non-smoking area's simply have area's designated as such without regard to physical seperation, ventilation, air flow, etc... So we're basically talking about a big square room with a bunch of tables and booths and the smoke is free to travel throughout the entire restaurant.

I disagree with this on two levels... firstly, it is akin to false advertising, in that the restaurant is effectively advertising a smoker-free area and then not delivering on that promise, and secondly, it shows a lack of respect for their customers. I have complained about such situations in the past.

I appreciate that you, a smoker has actually complained. I've complained myself but it does no good as nobody wants to rock the boat and nobody wants to shell out the money to fix the problem. I think they believe it's cheaper to lose those non-smoking customers then to modify the establishment so both the smokers and non-smokers can be happy.

And I have even gone farther. I have sat down in a smoking section not partitioned off well and lit up, then noticed a horrified look on the people's face who are sitting near me. I have smiled, gotten up, and moved across the room to at least minimize their discomfort. That was my decision, not forced on me by anyone, and I was happy to do it. I really am not trying to 'toot my own horn', so to speak, but rather to illustrate that while I am adamant about being able to smoke, I am not inconsiderate about the realities of such a decision.

I think that's very nice of you and if both sides had that type of get along attitude, we'd all be better off.

I think if you were fully aware of the scope of the debate on both sides and got to know some of these smokers who apparently bother you, you would realize it's not out of any desire to do so.

I do know that smokers are not doing it to bother non-smokers, they just don't have the consideration you do.

would still like to see a sign stating whether or not an establishment was smoking or non-smoking before I walk in, that's all I ask.

And I can see good logic in that request. I would be all for a little sign on the door of any establishment that allowed smoking informing the public at large of that fact. It infringes on no one's rights, leaves the government pretty much out of things, and is not heinous or expensive on the establishment.

And it gives people the freedom to make informed decisions about where they go.

That's all I ask. And if as it turns out that every establishments wants to be a smoking establishment, so be it. They made the decision about their own business and my response is to either except it or not patronize the business(s).

Maybe you should consider moving to Michigan, I think you'd love it here.

Been there (ex-trucker). Too cold, sorry. I'm a tropical kinda guy.

TheRedneck

TOO COLD !!! Are you kidding me? Hell it went from 1 degree F today, all the way up to a balmy 14 degrees You can't ask for more tropical then that

Hey thanks for the lively, intelligent debate and quality opinions

[edit on 4-2-2009 by jfj123]